A Retrospective Analysis presented by Jenny Lawrence at a Congress on “Policies
and Practices supporting Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa” held
in Abidjan November 1998

Abstract

The Garden Route Campaign has been carried for the last three years by
a small group of dedicated volunteers from the area. Their commitment
is based on the fundamental principle underpinning the Campaign’s
activities: that is, to create a link between the socioeconomic development
of our local communities and the need for environmental protection.
This principle has united the various activities of the Campaign, including
protest action against insensitive developments and participation in
governmental land-use planning and legislative processes. It’s
implementation requires the consideration of three inter-linking pillars
of sustainable development in the Garden Route, which are the need for
environmental protection, the sustainable creation of employment opportunities,
and the imperative for educating the public about the inter-relationships
between the natural environment, economic growth and social well-being.
The engagement with these principles has occurred from local level,
through provincial and national, to the international community via
conference presentations, and then back to the local. This cycle has
proven invaluable in the learning experience for all who have participated
that the Campaign. What has been achieved is a significant raising of
awareness of the principles of Sustainability as guidelines for development
of an ecologically sensitive biosphere.

Introduction

The Garden Route Campaign was conceived to contribute to community development
and the protection of the environment. Throughout, it has been driven
by a group of dedicated individuals, whose involvement was motivated
by their commitment to making a difference by These activities have
been of a variety of sorts, but their underlying principle has been
consistent: to create a link between the need for environmental conservation
and the upliftment of the poor communities in the area. This paper aims
to analyse in a critical manner the activities, experiences and effects
of the Campaign.

To place the Garden Route Campaign in its national context, we are looking
at the New South Africa within the first four years of its newly fledged
democracy. It is a society in transition following more that fifty years
of oppression under a political system that divided communities, favoured
a small white minority and disregarded the rights of the vast majority
of its people. The consequences of those dark years are now facing us
as we grapple with the almost insurmountable backlog of inadequate housing,
schooling and healthcare facilities, to name but three of the many serious
problems. There is still an expanding rift between the very rich and the
very poor at both extremes, with a relatively small, troubled and insecure
middle class floundering in between. What lies ahead is a long and difficult
path of healing, reconciliation and re-balancing.

With the transition of 1994, the new government committed itself to a
fundamentally different way of governing. Gone were the days when government
bureaucracies ruled supreme and local communities had no say in their
affairs. By means of a variety of initiatives, the most well-known of
which is the Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP), the government
sought to allow for public participation in legislative and administrative
procedures, primarily at the local level. Only due to this change, which
was initiated from central government, was it possible for us to engage
with local decision-making processes to affect outcomes and motivate other
communities to do the same.

Within the context of our New South Africa, there is no place for a rabid
insistence upon the preservation of green areas without taking careful
cognisance of the real and overwhelming social challenges facing us all.
Ironically, it would appear that those who are comfortably ensconced within
the trappings and privileges of our consumer society might agree with
these sentiments but find it difficult to cross the threshold into the
real work of community building. We appeal to those who have benefited
materially as the previously advantaged sector of the South African community
not to be tempted to believe that we know best when it comes to our natural
heritage. It is worth considering that the true cultural heritage and
richness of our country lies hidden in that simple and profound word “Ubuntu”.
What has warmed my heart many times during this challenging three year
period has been the extraordinary wealth of goodwill and generosity of
spirit that abides in our so called “other communities” despite
their ongoing hardships. It is my personal belief that caring for the
Earth begins with caring for our fellow human beings.

The Challenges facing the Garden Route

The “Garden Route” is the colloquial name given to a coastal
region stretching about 150 to 200 km in the east of the Western Cape
Province. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and ecological diversity,
which is known world wide as a popular tourist destination. Apart from
its crystal clear sea and clean white beaches, it is blessed with two
majestic mountain ranges, the Outeniqua and the Tsitsikamma, which provide
a stunning backdrop to the rich variety of wild flower and indigenous
forest vegetation from which the area derives its name. More than fifty
years ago the first attempts were made to have the whole coastline declared
a National Heritage Area worthy of rigorous protection. Since then, many
organisations, most notably the South African National Parks under the
then leadership of Dr. Robbie Robinson, have pursued this objective to
little avail. There has been a gradual deterioration of the landscape
over the years. Initially, the causes for this were the arbitrary building
of holiday homes and the encroachment of commercial pine forestation and
monoculture farming. More recently, much damage has been caused by a wave
of speculative structural development in the form of cluster housing,
hotels, casinos and golf courses. What has been lacking throughout has
been an adequate land-use plan to ensure that minimal damage to the natural
environment is caused.
Along the Garden Route there are a number of small coastal towns. The
centres of these towns are comprised predominantly of affluent, white
housing. Surrounding these centres are ever-expanding communities of previously
and still disadvantaged people who live on the periphery of the local
economic activity. Between these urban nodes are what may be described
as agricultural or rural communities made up in a similar way between
the rich and the poor. Until recently there has been little meaningful
social or political interaction between these sectors, the disadvantaged
people being simply employed by the more advantaged landowners.

What has caused great frustration for many Garden Route residents is
that local authorities have allowed many real estate developments to go
ahead, which have significantly damaged the environmental quality of the
area, in terms of biodiversity, ecological function and aesthetic beauty.
The purported reasons for allowing these developments have been the enhancement
of local economic activity and the creation of jobs. However, it is our
contention that many of the thus allowed developments have been counter-productive
in this respect. This is because the predominant source of economic activity
in the Garden Route is tourism. This tourism relies primarily on the natural
assets of the region. Already, many tourists have commented on the seemingly
ignorant way that we have built up this coastline. Hence, we believe,
the insensitive siting and construction of golf courses, housing and other
real estate developments is “killing the goose that lays the golden
eggs”.

Further, many of the claims that such developments create employment
opportunities are unfounded. The only time in which there is a significant
use of labour is in the construction phases. Even here, however, construction
firms frequently bring in cheap labour from other regions or even provinces.
In this way, not only do local communities lack the benefit, but they
also have to absorb this influx of single men who represent a disruption
to the social fabric of the communities. This is especially so following
the completion of the construction phase and the subsequent redundancy
of these labourers. In most developments we have encountered there is
very little real commitment to contributing to the benefit of the local
community. There is little or no training of the workforce and very little
of the wealth created is channeled to the community.

Sustainable Development of the Garden Route

Sustainable development is a process and not an end in itself. Its aim
is to create popular awareness and supporting behaviour so that everyone
allows development to proceed in such a way as to safeguard the life support
systems of the planet, whilst ensuring that all citizens are enabled to
meet their fundamental need for a dignified livelihood. Underlying this
principle is a triple process of:
• sharing responsibility so that the social fabric is retained
• enabling effective wealth creation to continue
• ensuring that the natural and social fabrics of the planet are not
damaged beyond repair (Professor Timothy O’Riordan of University of
East Anglia)

The challenges alluded to in the previous section demonstrate that there
are significant imbalances in terms of the way Professor O’Riordan’s
three pillars of sustainable development are aligned with each other in
the Garden Route.
Much inappropriate development has and still is occurring in the name
of enabling wealth creation. However, there is little consideration of
what the effect of these developments is on “the natural and social
fabrics of the planet”.

The Garden Route Campaign has thus considered it’s main objective
to appraise development proposals or land-use plans in terms of their
impact on the natural environment and the social and cultural well-being
of local communities who are most affected by the development. In this
sense, we do not believe that there is a necessary trade-off between environmental
protection and economic development. Rather, what is needed is awareness
amongst developers, decision-makers and the public, as to what is a sensitive
development. Such a development will minimise its negative impact on the
natural environment, while maximising its sustained benefits to the local
community.

In this context it has often been said that calls for the preservation
of the natural environment fall on deaf ears with those who lack adequate
food and shelter. However, it has been my personal experience that those
who have little material wealth have a good understanding of the implications
of destroying our natural world for the sake of a quick profit. Those
who are not shielded from the environment by air-conditioning or under-carpet
heating have demonstrated an acute awareness of the need to preserve our
natural life-supporting processes.

Hence, the Campaign has relied upon three pillars to provide theoretical
guidance.
The first is the fundamental need to preserve the natural environment.
Only if economic development is furthered within the bounds set by the
natural system will it be for the sustained benefit of the local communities.
The second need is that of employment creation. The single biggest need
faced by communities in South Africa is for jobs. Hence, in any appraisal
of a development proposal, the Garden Route Trust would ask: how many
long-term (i.e. sustainable) jobs will it create? Will it use local labour?
Will it provide training? In the Garden Route these two requirements are
inextricably linked: because our local economic development relies greatly
on tourism, job creation will only succeed if the tourist draw-card, the
area’s natural environment, is protected.
The third fundamental tenet of the Campaign is education. Only by means
of education will local communities gain an appreciation of the above-mentioned
interrelationship between their socio-economic wellbeing and the environment.
With such an appreciation they would be well placed to participate in
local decision-making procedures in a way that would benefit their community.
At present, shrewd real estate developers frequently attempt to elicit
support from poor communities, and hence gain local council support, by
means of making monetary or infrastructure-related promises in the event
of approval. Such temptations can only be counter-balanced if there is
an understanding in all communities of the interrelationships between
the natural environment, economic development and social stability.

However, the need for education rests not only with the disadvantaged
communities. The privileged sectors of society cannot demand to preserve
the natural environment for their aesthetic pleasure without considering
the needs of the underprivileged. Hence, rather than engage in NIMBY-type
activities only, environmental groups have a duty to consider the wider
implications of their actions. Further, we have consistently referred
to the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists in the underprivileged
communities, from which the more affluent and educationally advantaged
community can learn a great deal. The positive and reciprocal exchange
of knowledge and experience is what is necessary to keep the principles
of sustainability alive and practiced.

The Campaign: Activities and Lessons

Much of our early work in 1995,1996 till the end of 1997 was related
to protest action against what we considered to be insensitive developments.
Literally hundreds of letters were written and many meetings convened
and /or attended by GRT members. Such action included the petitioning
of local or provincial politicians, who were responsible for the approval
of the developments in terms of land-use planning legislation. This legislation
obliged the decision-makers to receive comment from the public regarding
decisions relating to changes in land use. Although this legislation is
from the Apartheid era and does thus not oblige the authority to consider
the comment, the interim Constitution of 1993 and the new Constitution
of 1996 created an atmosphere in which the public could demand for the
accountability of decisions taken. Notwithstanding our formally objections,
many of the developments we protested against were approved anyway. However,
we feel that our raising of issues such as bio-diversity conservation,
the dependence of tourism on our natural environment, and the use of local
labour, was prominent in the media and in our appearance at public meetings
and school presentations. It is evident from subsequent interactions with
government institutions, as well as developers, that this has contributed
to an awareness of the importance ofsensitive development. It is also
apparent that this increased awareness has led to a variety of initiatives
and organisations, which are aiding local councils making environmentally
sensitive decisions.

In addition to developing a theoretical model of sustainable development
as it relates to the Garden Route, as described in the preceding section,
we publicised a “Responsible Development Protocol”, which
was meant to guide decision-makers and other NGO’s in the appraisal
of proposed developments. Inter alia, this required developments to allow
for community participation in their planning and implementation and to
commit to using local rather than “imported” labour. In many
ways, we were making demands in terms of what was already considered good
project planning and environmental management practice. Much of these
concepts were contained in guidelines published by the national Department
of Environment Affairs and Tourism. However, they were not legally required
and hence frequently ignored. Our efforts were vindicated when, late in
1997, many of these requirements, including the need for public participation,
were made mandatory for certain activities, including land use changes.
Further, the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism has formally
recognised the particularly sensitive nature of the environment along
the Garden Route by promulgating a set of specific regulations in terms
of project appraisals. Another significant legislative process has been
the development of the Coastal Management Policy, to which we have made
substantial contributions. Although this policy is as yet contained only
in a green paper it is already making a difference. An example of this
is the way its recommendation to retain state ownership of land on the
coastal strip is affecting local authority appraisals of development applications.

Of utmost importance to the Campaign has been the role of the media.
For any development application that was due to go through a public participation
process, we would alert the public to this process by means of the local
press. If we thought that the decision making process was not transparent
or accountable we would challenge the local authority as well as the developer
on the grounds of the public’s constitutional right to fair and
accountable decision making. In the case of one or two highly controversial
and environmentally detrimental projects, we would make use of national
newspapers to bring these to the wider public’s attention. Our media
exposure was crowned by a prime-time television programme on World Environment
Day, 5 June 1996, brilliantly documenting the threats posed to the natural
environment of the Garden Route. This was an important turning point for
the Campaign, as it created a ground swell of support for the cause to
find more sensitive ways of developing the coastal areas of the country.

If one of our greatest successes has been the fruitful interaction with
the media, then our biggest disappointment has been the problems experienced
with creating an organisational base for the Campaign. This base was to
be provided by the Garden Route Trust, which was to carry the Campaign
forward and raise funds for it. However, it failed to do so, for a variety
of reasons. These reasons are at the heart of what might be seen as some
of the root causes for the lacking civil, broad-based community participation
in developmental and environmental issues in South Africa. By trying to
explicitly link the environmental question to that of community development,
we placed ourselves in between two “camps”, which are not
necessarily opposed to each other, but are in many ways exclusive and
lacking in interaction. On the one hand, there are the “green” groups,
made up of predominantly wealthy, white residents. On the other, there
are community development groups who have the enhancement of the living
conditions in the poor communities as their main objective. Due to our
orientation we did not fit into any of these types of organisations. Amongst
the “greens” our insistence on community development sounded
too much like some kind of socialist project. For the poor communities,
little support was to be gained for an environmental agenda. Commonly,
environmental incentives are seen by the disadvantaged to be a smokescreen
for an elitist concern to maintain white privilege. One of our main objectives
was to create a link between these “camps”. However, we did
not succeed in such a way that secured a sustainable inflow of funds for
our activities.

The result of the successful exposure of our ideas and principles on
the one hand, and the difficulty of creating a solid local support base
on the other, brought about a re-orientation to focusing on our immediate
surroundings. In many ways, then, we had come full circle in the three
years of the Campaign. Starting with local protest action we engaged in
ever increasing scales, as the awareness grew that the facilitating structures
for the type of developments we were fighting existed beyond our local
level. Hence, our dedicated participation in provincial planning bodies
and national legislative processes. Similarly, our relationship with the
media moved from local newsletters with limited distribution to the exposure
to millions of TV viewers. But our level of engagement also went beyond
national boundaries. By means of visiting international conventions and
workshops, we have endeavoured to provide our perspective on local issues
of global significance. The experiences gained at these different events
have been invaluable in our work at the local level. Our interaction with
South African and international activists and academics has directed,
molded and cemented our understanding of what needs to be done here in
the Garden Route. In our localities, we can successfully implement these
lessons and spread the knowledge gained.

One example of how our re-focusing on our localities has contributed
to sustainable development is the Small Boat Harbour in Plettenberg Bay.
After having been initiated in typical fashion according to the principles
and objectives of the developer, the wider community of Plettenberg Bay
has now taken ownership of the entire process. A widely representative
and legitimated steering committee has been formed, which has set up the
principles and objectives of the development. With these principles in
place, it is now appraising a wide variety of applications made for the
implementation of the project. This is an important pilot project demonstrating
that development can be initiated and managed by means of community consensus,
in terms of the social, economic and environmental needs of the public,
and not the narrow economic interest of the developer alone.

Conclusion

It is difficult to state clearly the results of our Campaign. Many of
the effects of our actions are subliminal and may surface only long
afterwards. However, one can safely say that the repeated exposure of
our fundamental principle – the linking of community welfare and
environmental protection – has contributed to a much more sensitive
approach to development appraisal by local authorities and communities.
There is also awareness amongst many of the local communities for the
need to participate in decision-making processes. It is also the feeling
of many local residents, as illustrated, for instance, in the local
press, that the authorities do show more respect for public input than
four years ago. At the same time, the experiences gained during the
Campaign have provided invaluable lessons that can be applied in our
localities. Projects such as the Small Boat Harbour and the Soetkraal
Working for Water Project have gained a great deal. As such, the Campaign
has contributed, together with many other initiatives, in that great
learning experience called “South Africa in transformation”!

Please Click on the links below to quickly go to the heading you are
interested in.

If
there are any broken links on this page please email info@pureimage.co.za
This site is made by Pure Image - Web Design --------
*Free Website for NON Profit organisations (7 page website) or **R970
off advanced sites
*(Subject to the registration of a .org or .org.za domain R299, Setup
Fee R199, 12 month hosting @ R129 per/month)
or **(...,hosting R167 p/m)